Ms. Terry gave a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

Note: The items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not public hearings. Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence. The following persons may appear at hearings as parties and be heard in person or by attorney:

(1) The applicant;

(2) The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the applicant or appellant;

(3) The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject of the application; and

(4) Any other person who claims that a direct, present injury or prejudice to a personal or property right will occur if the application is approved or denied.

A person authorized to appear and be heard may:

(1) Present his or her position, argument and contentions;

(2) Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position arguments and contentions;

(3) Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(4) Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(5) Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not been admitted by the Board.

Mr. Ashbaugh excused himself at 7:05 PM from discussion and voting on Application #09-132 (James Browder, 122 North Pearl Street) because he is a contiguous property owner. Mr. Ashbaugh was seated in the audience during the discussion and voting of Application #09-132.

New Business:

James Browder, 122 North Pearl Street, Application #09-132

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request submitted by James Browder for the property located at 122 North Pearl Street is for approval of a variance to reduce the northern side yard setback from ten (10') feet to two and a half (2 ½') feet to allow for the installation of an air conditioning unit.

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and James and Emily Browder were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

James Browder, 122 North Pearl Street, stated that he would like to place an air conditioning unit on the north side of his yard. He stated that he is also seeking the appropriate approval from the Planning Commission. He stated that this is the best location to place the unit because of where it has to be wired to the basement. Mr. Gill questioned if the actual setback is seven foot. Mr. Browder stated yes. Mr. Browder explained that he chose this location because he wanted to avoid the existing water lines, chimney, and the crawl space. Mr. Montgomery asked how close the air conditioning unit will be to the house. Mr. Browder stated one foot. Mr. Gill asked if there have been any comments from the neighbors. Ms. Terry stated no. Mr. Browder indicated that the neighbor on north side has been ill and may not be aware of his application, but that she also has an air conditioning unit on the same side of her house facing his house. Ms. Terry indicated that this neighbor was sent a notice regarding the application. Mr. Montgomery asked what part of the neighbor’s home will the air conditioning unit be facing. EmilyBrowder, 121 North Pearl Street, indicated that the unit will be closest to the neighbor’s living room. Mr. Montgomery asked if the applicant had any specifications on this particular type of model regarding the noise level. Mr. Browder indicated that the unit does say it is a low noise model, but he can’t say for sure if it really is. Mrs. Browder indicated that they are expecting their neighbor to return this week and they will have a conversation with her to see if she has any objections to the location of the air conditioning unit.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-132:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(2) Whether the variance is substantial. Each member of the BZBA stated that the variance is not substantial.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE. Mr. Montgomery stated that the applicant has indicated that it would be difficult to place the unit elsewhere due to the location of the wiring to the basement.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.

(Mr. Ashbaugh re-joined the BZBA meeting as the Chair of the hearing at 7:20 PM.)

David and Rebecca Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street, Application #09-138

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request submitted by David and Rebecca Schnaidt is for approval of a variance to reduce the eastern side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to a half (1/2’) foot to allow for the installation of a pergola and flagstone patio.

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and David Schnaidt were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

David Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street, explained what a pergola is and where the existing garden is located. Mr. Schnaidt indicated that they would like to add a pergola and flagstone to the garden area and it will overlook a fire pit and outdoor waterfall area. The house to the east was originally built too close to the property line and the owner’s, The Stover’s, had to sell some of the Schnaidt’s property to the neighbor so that they could have access to their house & side yard. Mr. Schnaidt stated that his neighbor’s to the east, Christian and Stephanie Kuntz, have told him that they do not have any issues regarding his plans and the improvements provide for a better view from their kitchen or their front yard. Mr. Schnaidt stated that he would like to make the yard area more attractive. He also stated that the improvements will not change access to/from the stairs and they are not coming over any further than it currently is. Mr. Gill asked Ms. Terry if the applicant would need a variance if they were only doing the flagstone patio. Ms. Terry stated yes because a variance is needed for anything built that is attached to the ground. Mr. Schnaidt stated that it will still be a semi-permeable structure. He stated that the proposed lattice will be used for screening. Ms. Terry indicated that the Planning Commission has approved Mr. Schnaidt's application contingent upon him getting a variance from the BZBA. Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the flagstone will be 13x13. Mr. Schnaidt stated that the whole patio area will be 13x13 and the existing railroad tie wall will be replaced with stone at the existing height and restacked to look uniform. Mr. Schnaidt indicated that the pergola will be smaller than 13x13. Mr. Montgomery asked the approximate height of the pergola. Mr. Schnaidt stated that it will be approximately nine (9’) foot tall. Mr. Montgomery asked where the stacked stone is in relation to the steps. Mr. Schnaidt stated that it will be in line with the handrail of the steps and the stacked stone wall will be at the same height it is now with the two railroad ties. Mr. Ashbaugh asked if there will be steps up to the pergola. Mr. Schnaidt stated yes. Mr. Ashbaugh questioned why Mr. Schnaidt didn’t consider lowering everything. Mr. Schnaidt stated that they feel it would be more appealing to have a variety of heights because it allows them to view the waterfall area if the pergola is elevated.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-138:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(2) Whether the variance is substantial. Each member of the BZBA stated that the variance is not substantial.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Mr. Ashbaugh, Mr. Montgomery, and Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE. Mr. Gill indicated that he believes this criteria is FALSE in this situation.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1159, Village District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1159, Village District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.

Village Planner Terry gave a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

Note: The items listed on this agenda under Old Business and New Business are open to the public, but are not public hearings. Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence. The following persons may appear at hearings as parties and be heard in person or by attorney:

(1) The applicant;

(2) The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the applicant or appellant;

(3) The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject of the application; and

(4) Any other person who claims that a direct, present injury or prejudice to a personal or property right will occur if the application is approved or denied.

A person authorized to appear and be heard may:

(1) Present his or her position, argument and contentions;

(2) Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(3) Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(4) Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(5) Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not been admitted by the Board.

The request is for approval of a variance to increase the maximum square footage from 30,186 square feet to 31,386 square feet for a single use;

To reduce the minimum height of a commercial structure from two story to one story; and

To reduce the minimum required roof pitch.

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and Andy Ross were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Andy Ross, Granville Corporation, 484 South Main Street, stated that they would like to add a storage building to the rear of the property and they are also requesting permission to take over the use of the entire building located at 484 South Main Street. Ms. Terry stated that the variance request is being heard because a single tenant can’t exceed 4000 square feet in this zoning district. She stated that the video store and storage building as a single use in its entirety is approximately 31,386 square feet. She went on to say that the single use square footage was increased before, but an additional variance is still required. Ms. Terry also stated that the Suburban Business District also has a requirement that states only two story buildings are permitted and the applicant is presenting a building that is not a true two story building. She stated that the Code states that the required roof pitch should be 8/12 and the applicant is proposing a 4/12 roof pitch. Ms. Terry stated that the applicant is also going to the Planning Commission on Monday for architectural review and approval. Mr. Gill clarified that the previous variance was just for the front addition. Ms. Terry stated yes. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the new building will be used to help clean-up items in the rear of the property. Mr. Ross stated that they will also keep a company vehicle in the new structure. Ms. Hoyt asked the applicant to point out the location of the storage building on a drawing. Ms. Terry explained that the remainder of the building is grandfathered, for height of the structure and pitch of the roof, because it was in place before the Code regulations. Mr. Gill questioned if there would be any retail done in the new structure or is it just for storage. Mr. Ross stated no it will only be used for storage.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-113:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(2) Whether the variance is substantial. Mr. Smith stated that the variance is not substantial.Ms. Hoyt, Mr. Gill, and Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the variance was substantial.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. Mr. Gill, Ms. Hoyt, and Mr. Ashbaugh agreed TRUE. Mr. Smith stated that he did not feel this criteria could be determined.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the front yard setback from thirty (30') feet to sixteen (16') feet to allow for the construction of a new single story addition. The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

Discussion:

(Alison Terry, Steven Gaubert, and Mark Clapsadle were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Mark Clapsadle, 4380 Granview Road, stated that he was representing the applicant’s Steven and Elizabeth Gaubert, on an addition for the front elevation of their home. He stated that all of the homes on the street already sit well over the front setback line and the applicant is requesting the official variance to allow for the addition. Ms. Terry explained that on this street the north side is zoned Village Residential District and the south side is zoned Suburban Residential District. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Clapsadle if he feels the proposed location is the only logical location for this addition. Mr. Clapsadle stated yes and one reason is to make the bathroom closer to the existing bedroom. Ms. Hoyt asked the existing locations of the bathrooms and Mr. Clapsadle showed her their locations on the submitted drawings. Mr. Clapsadle stated that one now must walk through a living room, foyer, and a hallway to get to the bathroom. Mr. Smith asked if this home is on the historical registry. Mr. Clapsadle stated he would highly doubt it, that there is no true style to the home and it’s already been added onto various times. Mr. Smith asked if there have been any comments by the neighbors on this request. Ms. Terry stated no. Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the addition will impede any access to the home. Mr. Clapsadle stated no and it will only affect some of the grass area. Mr. Ashbaugh asked why the addition didn’t go around the corner of the home. Mr. Clapsadle stated that structurally it would not work due to the roof pitch currently on the home. He stated that putting the addition on the side of the home would also not be cost effective. Mr. Gill asked if the only way that the applicant could add on to the home without a variance would be to the dining room/living room. Mr. Clapsadle stated yes. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the Planning Commission will be determining if the presented architecture is appropriate and the BZBA is simply approving the placement of the structure.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-116:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(2) Whether the variance is substantial. Each member of the BZBA stated that the variance is not substantial. Mr. Smith stated that in the context of the neighborhood and the condition of the current structure he does not believe the variance is substantial.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.

The request is for approval of the following variances, Option 1, to allow for the construction of a one story detached garage:

To reduce the minimum side yard setback from twelve feet to two and a half feet along the northern property line;

To increase the maximum building lot coverage from 20% to 24.6%; and

To increase the maximum size of an accessory structure from 864 square feet to 1,140 square feet; and

To reduce the minimum driveway setback for a side yard from five feet to 2.5 feet along the northern property line.

The request is for approval of the following variances, Option 2, to allow for the construction of a one and half story detached garage:

To reduce the minimum side yard setback from twelve feet to two and half feet along the southern property line;

To increase the maximum building lot coverage from 30% to 20.6%; and

To reduce the minimum driveway setback for a side yard from five feet to 2.5 feet along the northern property line; and

To reduce the minimum driveway setback for a rear yard from ten feet to seven feet along the eastern property line.

Discussion:

Alison Terry and Michael Carey were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Michael Carey, 332 North Granger Street, stated that he was previously before the Planning Commission and they requested that he go back to the BZBA for approval of a variance to locate his garage in a different area on the property. Ms. Terry explained that the application has been presented by Mr. Carey with two different options. She stated that the BZBA can review the criteria for both options or choose one option and go through the criteria on just that option. She also explained that there was a variance that was granted several months ago for a one and a half story structure and after this approval the applicant came to the Planning Commission and there was a lot of discussion with the neighbors on the structure and as a result the Planning Commission asked the applicant to amend the location of the structure. Ms. Terry stated that the Village Manager chose to amend the original application to override the previous decision by the BZBA for reconsideration. Mr. Carey stated that out of the two options he is presenting he prefers Option 1 because it blends into the neighborhood better and his neighbors seem to like and support it. Mr. Carey explained that he is also presenting Option 2 as a backup plan because he fears that there is some question as to whether or not the Planning Commission will approve Option 1. He stated that the one story type garage has not yet been presented to the Planning Commission and at this time he does not know how they will feel about the change from the one and a half story that they previously supported.

Ms. Terry stated that Mr. Carey’s application will be before the Planning Commission on Monday, September 14th. Mr. Carey stated that he would like to request that the BZBA not put a one story restriction on the approval for a variance in case the Planning Commission feels that a story and a half structure look is preferred. Mr. Smith stated that it appears Mr. Carey has been before the boards several times and he hopes Mr. Carey hasn’t soured on moving to Granville. Mr. Smith stated that the BZBA approved the variance before and it was to increase the footprint of the existing garage. Ms. Terry stated that the applicant previously requested placing the new garage in the same location as the old garage, but making the footprint bigger. She stated that with this proposal, the garage would be placed further back in the rear yard - to the fifteen foot setback. Mr. Smith questioned what is the purpose of Option 2 if Option 1 is liked by the neighbors. Mr. Gill asked what were the Planning Commission’s concerns. Ms. Terry stated that they were concerned about building height, massing, and they asked that the structure be placed further back on the property and still keep it a story and a half. Mr. Carey stated that at first when the Planning Commission suggested this he was unsure because it would take up more yard space. He went on to say that he had a discussion with the neighbors and they all ultimately agreed with Option 1. Ms. Hoyt stated that the Planning Commission has not yet seen Option 1, and it seems larger than previous out buildings they typically see in the Village. Mr. Gill stated that the applicant would be bringing down the vertical bulk of the structure with Option 1. Ms. Hoyt stated that if the BZBA were to not set a limit to a single story than the structure could end up being larger with a one and a half story. Mr. Carey stated that he would be willing to live with any restrictions set by the BZBA regarding the footprint or capping the square footage to be around 700 square feet. He stated that this restriction would not allow him to build a 38x30 structure and also be a story and a half. Mr. Smith asked if the existing garage would be torn down. Mr. Carey stated yes. Mr. Smith asked the current lot coverage. Mr. Carey guessed somewhere under 20 percent. Ms. Terry stated that the last variance was to increase the lot coverage to 20.6 percent. Mr. Carey stated that Option 1 is a risk, but less risk without the single story restriction on it. He added that the Planning Commission was ready to approve the building he presented with a stipulation that it be moved further back on the property. He stated that in the meantime, they all came to prefer the one story structure. Mr. Carey asked why the BZBA couldn’t limit the square footage of the structure instead of insisting on a one story structure just in case the Planning Commission doesn’t approve it. He stated that he is on record stating that he is not requesting a structure that large. Mr. Ashbaugh reviewed the previous conditions approved with the variance and they included no windows on the south side of the structure, that the structure be limited to a one and a half story structure, and that the location of the structure be as submitted by the applicant. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that this was approved by the BZBA and the Planning Commission couldn’t live within those parameters. Mr. Carey stated that it was not so much the Planning Commission, but the neighbors requested a different location because they were trying to find a win/win situation for everyone involved. Mr. Carey stated he feels they do have a win/win with Option 1. He also stated that he has a projector available to view all of the options if the BZBA is interested in viewing this information.

Joe Hickman, 326 North Granger Street, stated that he felt that the Planning Commission was not going to approve the presented plan of a story and a half structure. He stated that they anticipated a story and a half structure to be about 16 foot high, the same as the McCoy's garage which was approved several years ago. Mr. Hickman stated that Mr. Carey’s garage took on a different shape and size than they anticipated with dormers and a 20 foot high roof. Mr. Hickman stated that the Planning Commission couldn’t pass Mr. Carey’s presented plan in good conscience and asked all of us to meet and come up with a new plan. Mr. Hickman stated that they do like Option 1 presented by Mr. Carey tonight. He stated that they would contest the one and a half story structure previously presented to the Planning Commission and they would be hesitant to approve Option 2. Mr. Carey stated that this is not what Mr. Hickman stated at the last Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Hoyt asked Mr. Hickman if he objects to the requested variance near his property line. Mr. Hickman stated that he does not object, but you may want to check with the McCoy’s because the structure will be closer to them. Mr. Hickman stated that if the BZBA member’s came out and looked at the existing garage and where it lines up at their property they would see that the proposed size of Mr. Carey’s first structure is not fitting.

Mr. Smith asked Mr. Hickman if he is saying this will change the essential character of the neighborhood if altered. Mr. Smith went on to explain that the BZBA has legal criteria they must follow and he questions which criteria Mr. Hickman’s concerns fall under. He asked if the variance would be a detriment to his property and if so how? Mr. Hickman stated yes because of site lines and massing. Mr. Smith asked what is meant by massing. Mr. Hickman stated that there would be massing right next to his property and Option 1 is similar to his garage and the McCoy’s garage, which is more fitting to the neighborhood. Mr. Gill stated that it seems as though Mr. Hickman has no objection to the side yard variance, but the taller the structure is the less he wants to see it be located closer to his property line. Mr. Hickman agreed and stated that they feel a “16 footish” structure is the most appropriate. Mr. Gill asked if the BZBA can approve the number of stories for a structure. Ms. Terry stated that they can in this zoning district which is Suburban Residential District which allows for thirty foot high structures. Ms. Hoyt questioned how they are to know the height of the typical story and a half. Mr. Carey stated that his structure fits into the guidelines he read regarding a story and a half structure.

Dale McCoy, 338 North Granger Street, stated that his garage is sixteen foot high and his garage is not a story and a half. He stated that he was told it had to have a roof pitch that matched his house, which is a 6/12 pitch. Mr. Carey stated that Mr. McCoy chose to make his first floor ten feet high. Mr. McCoy stated that he admits that a story and a half structure didn’t sound that bad to him, but the applicant’s idea of a story and a half is only two feet shorter than his house. Mr. McCoy stated that Mr. Carey said he would consider a single story, but the lot coverage would not allow for this. Mr. McCoy stated that he told him he was told the same thing - that the lot coverage numbers are not set in stone and can be changed. Mr. McCoy stated that Mr. Carey will end up with more driveway with Option 1. Mr. Ashbaugh indicated that the garage will be two feet away from Mr. McCoy’s property line and he asked if he has a problem with this. Mr. McCoy stated he has no problem with this.

Mr. Smith stated that he would support approval of Option 1 and if for some reason the Planning Commission doesn’t like Option 1 he would also vote to approve the variance for Option 2. He stated that since he knows the neighbors support Option 1 he will also support it.

Mr. Carey stated that if there is not a parameter in the approval allowing him to change to the one and a half story structure in case the Planning Commission doesn’t agree with Option 1 – he will not have the garage he desires. Mr. Hickman stated that the Planning Commission will make Option 1 work after all we have collectively been through. Mr. Ashbaugh asked if Option 1 is ok with Mr. Hickman since it will be twenty-two feet away from his lot line. Mr. Hickman stated that he is ok with this. Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the structure were to be taller and in the rear of the property would it still bother you Mr. Hickman. Mr. Hickman stated yes he would object if the structure were taller. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the existing garage would go away and provide a more open feeling. Mr. Carey stated that he very strongly objects to the limitation of a one story structure. He stated that he has heard that the one story style will not be preferred by the Planning Commission because it is too similar to a garage built around the 70’s as opposed to a more historic structure. Mr. Carey stated that he has been through a lot with the Planning Commission and they have looked at different plans over the past several months. He stated that he doesn’t know how the Planning Commission will react to this new idea because it is very different from anything else he has presented. Mr. Carey stated that technically if a story and a half is approved it will extend the Hickman’s privacy fence. He stated that he took all of the neighbors concerns into consideration and they claim they didn’t know a story and a half would be at that height. He stated after all this discussion, we are still arguing about a story and a half structure. Mr. Carey stated that we all like this Option 1and he feels he is “bending over backwards” to appease the neighbors. He asked to not be limited to a single story structure.

Barbara McCoy, 338 North Granger Street, stated that they are all tired of this situation and this garage with Option 1 fits in with other garages in the neighborhood. She stated she doesn’t see how the Planning Commission wouldn’t see that. Mrs. McCoy stated that the other garage presented by Mr. Carey is a story and a half and does not fit into the neighborhood.

Mr. Gill stated that he appreciates everyone’s comments and he understands Mr. Carey’s concern because what you think fits the neighborhood may be different from what the Planning Commission thinks. Mr. Gill stated that he is also hearing that everyone feels Option 1 fits into the neighborhood. Mr. Carey stated that Mr. McCoy also wanted a larger structure ten years ago. Mrs. McCoy stated that they were told no and they didn’t argue this. Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Carey’s concerns are legitimate and as a general matter people should be able to use their property to their benefit. Mr. Smith stated he doesn’t see his plan in either Option 1 or 2 to be contrary to the neighborhood or as an unreasonable request because it supports the spirit of the zoning code. He stated that Mr. Carey can paint his house purple and pink with stripes and the neighbors may not like that, but he can still do it. He ended by saying he does feel Mr. Carey he has a legitimate concern and he suspects if this came before him again for a different variance he would vote for Option 2.

Mr. Gill stated that if we approve Option 1 and then the Planning Commission wants dormers and a 20 foot high roof, Mr. Carey would have to resubmit for another variance. Mr. Smith stated that perhaps approving the application as it is presented without conditions is the “cleanest” way to approve it and if it is rejected by the Planning Commission the applicant would have to come back to the BZBA. He added that they should not approve it based on what the Planning Commission may or may not do. Mr. Gill agreed and stated that any provisions they would add could be interpreted differently. Mr. Carey stated that he is “up against the clock for this year” to have this built and he hopes he doesn’t have to come back to the BZBA for another approval.

Mr. Smith asked if fellow BZBA members are likely to approve the application if it were not limited to a one story structure. Ms. Hoyt stated that she will not approve the footprint if it’s more than one story and she doesn’t want to yield her duties to the Planning Commission. Mr. Gill stated he feels no qualms with Option 1. Mr. Carey stated that he Planning Commission has to look at the massing guidelines.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-21 regarding presented Option 1:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(2) Whether the variance is substantial. Ms. Hoyt stated that the variance is substantial. Mr. Gill, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the variance is not substantial.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Mr. Smith stated that the character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered. Mr. Gill, Ms. Hoyt, and Mr. Ashbaugh stated FALSE.

(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. Mr. Smith stated that there will be some increase in light and property values and these concerns have been raised but are not felt to be problematic.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Mr. Smith the applicant is not wanting to limit the structure to a one story if the Planning Commission is not in agreement. He questioned if there would be any support to delete the words “one story” as stated in the submittal. Mr. Gill stated that he is not sure how he would vote if the application came back to the BZBA with a change.

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #09-21 as submitted with Option 1.

Mr. Carey asked to comment regarding the motion.

Mr. Smith moved to withdraw his motion so Mr. Carey could comment if so recognized by the Chair, Mr. Ashbaugh. Mr. Ashbaugh questioned if there was a need to hear more testimony. He also stated that he doesn’t feel that the Planning Commission will send this back to the BZBA. Mr. Gill suggested approving the application as presented and not trying to word it cleverly with restrictions. Mr. Smith stated he thinks that it was the applicant’s original intention to not have a one and a half story mentioned in the approval and this was something staff put in when formalizing the application. Mr. Gill stated that he doesn’t feel simply deleting “one story” would be sufficient enough to allow the applicant to build a one and a half story structure. Mr. Ashbaugh asked if Mr. Carey reviewed this application before tonight. Ms. Terry stated that Mr. Carey did not review this exact verbiage that she put on the staff report. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that he will allow Mr. Smith’s motion to be withdrawn but after all the discussion he doesn’t know what more testimony could be added. Mr. Carey stated he did receive three emails from Ms. Terry. Ms. Terry stated that these pertained to the Planning Commission meeting on Monday. Mr. Carey stated he did not have an email on the BZBA staff report. Mr. Gill said that it would be difficult to come up with language putting restrictions on Option 1. Mr. Carey stated he disagrees and coming back to the BZBA means further delays and more costs for him. Mr. Ashbaugh said that he has had this information regarding the application since Monday and its been out for review. He stated that the Planning Commission may approve/disapprove of the structure, and the BZBA can only tell him where the structure can be located. Mr. Gill stated that they have three families that seem to have worked out a consensus and he suggests that they vote on that.

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #09-21 (Amended) with Option 1, as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Gill.

Mr. Ashbaugh asked if there is any more discussion.

Ms. Hoyt stated she is more swayed by Mr. Smith’s comments regarding eliminating the one story verbiage. She stated that she didn’t read this as footprint square footage, but she read it as total square footage. She stated that if they look at total square footage, she would be in favor of deleting the one story stipulation. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that they would have to talk to the neighbors and he questions if this is what they would agree to. He stated that they seem to not want the height, but they are ok with a larger one story structure. Mr. Carey stated that the neighbors stated on the record that they didn’t like the height when the garage was up front, but not when it was in the back of the property. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that he heard Mr. Hickman say he didn’t like the height at all. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the BZBA only votes on the footprint and not the total square footage of a structure. Mr. Carey stated that he requested a joint session of the Planning Commission and BZBA because this approval is very intertwined but the process is contrary to that. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the BZBA previously voted on approving dormers and a story and a half but it appears that the Planning Commission was not ok with this. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that Mr. Carey could request to table the application, but this wouldn’t really get him anywhere. Mr. Carey stated that he has already been approved for a variance. Mr. Ashbaugh stated yes, but the neighbors stated during the Planning Commission meetings that they don’t want a one-and-a half story structure. Mr. Carey stated that he now is hearing a 180 flip tonight from the neighbors and every time at these meetings it’s something else that they object to.

Mr. Smith stated he does have some concern that the BZBA did previously approve this as a one and a half story structure, although everyone can change their mind. Mr. Smith stated that he would presume that Mr. Carey’s neighbors will support Option 1 at the Planning Commission meeting and if for some reason they don’t he has indicated how he will vote if this matters comes before the BZBA again. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #09-21: Gill (yes), Smith (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application #09-21(AMENDED) is Approved

Finding of Fact

Application #09-113 (Ross Market)

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1175, Suburban Business District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Chapter 1157, General zoning Regulations, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.

Mrs. Terry gave a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

Note: The items listed on this agenda under Old Business and New Business are open to the public, but are not public hearings. Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence. The following persons may appear at hearings as parties and be heard in person or by attorney:

(1) The applicant;

(2) The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the

applicant or appellant;

(3) The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject

of the application; and

(4) Any other person who claims that a direct, present injury or prejudice to a personal or

property right will occur if the application is approved or denied.

A person authorized to appear and be heard may:

(1) Present his or her position, argument and contentions;

(2) Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position,

arguments and contentions;

(3) Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and

contentions;

(4) Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to

his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(5) Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not

(Alison Terry, Julie Smith, and Frank O’Brien-Bernini were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Ms. Terry asked that it be clarified for the record that the Agenda lists the wrong application number for Application #09-75.

Julie Smith, 332 West Elm Street, stated that the board has seen the plans and tabled the application due to the exact location of the sewer line. Ms. Smith stated that since tabling the application she took a look at the retaining wall made from railroad ties and it is in need of replacement. She indicated that by replacing the retaining wall, it should allow better access to the sewer line if it ever needs to be replaced. Ms. Smith stated that only a small portion of the wall would have to be removed, rather than the entire wall. She stated that they have moved the pillars a foot or two to allow better access to the sewer line and this was approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Gill clarified that the neighbor that raised the issue that resulted in the BZBA tabling the application indicated that his sewer line is in the center of Ms. Smith’s driveway. He stated that the neighbor wanted to ensure that the line could be dug out and equipment could get through to do any repairs that might be needed. Ms. Smith stated that should a repair need to be done she does not believe she would want heavy equipment back there compromising the retaining wall and most likely any digging would have to be done by hand. Ms. Terry showed the drawing with the modifications to the pillars that was given to the Planning Commission with the review of the Porte cochere. She also stated that she spoke with Erik Holmquist at the Sewer Plant and he said he understands that there may be a sewer line and it is a private line off of the main line. Ms. Terry stated that Mr. Holmquist indicated that it would be up to the homeowner to handle any and all costs of a sewer line repair for that private line. Mr. Ashbaugh questioned if someone could come back to say that the Village made the property owner incur this expense. Ms. Terry stated that she also had a conversation with the Village Manager, Don Holycross, and he stated no.

Frank O’Brien-Bernini, 338 West Elm Street, stated that he has talked with Brad and Julie Smith and they have a good mechanism in place for relieving any concerns he previously had. He stated that the applicant has indicated that they will do everything possible to avoid hitting the sewer line and he has also made sure that the contractor has liability insurance if he were to hit it. Mr. O’Brien-Bernini also stated that the water run off concern he previously had was also addressed by the Smiths.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-75:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(2) Whether the variance is substantial. Each member of the BZBA stated that the variance is not substantial.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE. Mr. Gill noted that anytime the BZBA approves a variance up to the property line you can start to impact the delivery of services and make it difficult to move freely between various structures. Ms. Terry indicated that this particular variance for Application #09-75 is not on the property line.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.

Nick Schott, 660 West Broadway, stated that he is requesting a Conditional Use for a Lodging/Guest Home for property he owns at 664 West Broadway. Mr. Schott stated that prior to owning this home it has been a rental for fifteen plus years. He indicated that the Code lists a Lodging home as being a permissible conditional use for the SRD-C zoning district if approved by the BZBA. He went on to say that he reviewed the criteria and feels he meets all of the requirements. Mr. Schott stated that the proposed use of the property would have a positive effect on the school population. He stated that he can view this property from his back door residence and it is within his best interest to make sure there is a positive impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Schott indicated that he has improved the look of the home and he sees no impact on the infrastructure or increased burden to roadway, water, and sewer systems. Mr. Schott stated that his target audience of renters include business travelers and individuals needing short term furnished rentals.

Mr. Gill asked if the conditional use is required for anything less than a 12 month rental agreement. Ms. Terry stated that the unit could be rented month to month, but not shorter. Ms. Terry read aloud the definition of a Lodging House in the Code.

Mr. Montgomery questioned if the applicant could have multiple family arrangements with this conditional use. Ms. Terry stated that the applicant would only be permitted to rent the entire unit and not individual rooms. Mr. Ashbaugh questioned if a bed and breakfast falls under this category. Ms. Terry stated no because a bed and breakfast is a home occupation and you are required to live there as well. Mr. Montgomery questioned if the duration of the rental can be as short as one wants. Ms. Terry indicated that it could be rented by the night, multiple days, or by the week. Ms. Hoyt asked if there are any other properties in the Village with this designation. Ms. Terry stated that she does not know of any. Ms. Hoyt stated that this is an interesting concept for Granville. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that there is another home he is aware of across from the funeral home that used to be designated as a lodging house. Mr. Montgomery questioned if the conditional use survives the sale of the property. Ms. Terry stated that if the property were to sell the permit shall automatically go with the sale of the property and it would expire if the conditional use is not commenced within two years. She stated that the permit can also expire if the use is discontinued for more than two years. Mr. Montgomery questioned if there have been any concerns by the neighbors. Mr. Schott stated that he has been in contact with most of the neighbors and he explained that they were going to be invited to attend this hearing if they did have concerns. He also indicated that one neighbor stated that they didn’t see how the change would impact them any differently than it is now. Ms. Hoyt stated that most likely the neighbors are delighted that you are improving the property.

The BZBA discussed that the need for the conditional use is because the applicant wants to rent the structure for a shorter duration of time other than a monthly rental (which does not require BZBA approval.). Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the home could be rented daily or weekly with this designation. He asked Ms. Terry if she received any comments or concerns by any neighbors. Ms. Terry stated no.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-104:

(a) The proposed use is a Conditional Use within the zoning district and the applicable development standards of this Zoning Ordinance are met. The BZBA stated TRUE.

(b) The proposed use is in accordance with appropriate plans for the area and is compatible with the existing land use. The BZBA stated TRUE. Ms. Terry and Mr. Ashbaugh indicated that there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that differentiates the property and it is shown as future residential.

(c) The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as streets, utilities, schools and refuse disposal. The BZBA stated TRUE.

(d) The proposed use will not be detrimental or disturbing to existing neighboring uses, and will not entail a use, structure or condition of operation that constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons or property. The BZBA stated TRUE.

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1159, Village Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Conditional Uses, Village Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Ashbaugh explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding. He stated that the BZBA has thirty days to make a decision and any appeals are heard by Village Council. Mr. Ashbaugh indicated that any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence.

James Browder, 122 North Pearl Street, stated that the variance is required for the placement of the shed. He stated that he would be placing lawn equipment in the shed and it will not be visible from the street. Mr. Montgomery stated that a resident is on one side of his property and Newkirk Design Studio is on the other side. Mr. Gill asked if any adjoining property owners had expressed concerns with this application. Ms. Terry stated that there was not a response by any adjacent or adjoining property owners. Mr. Browder stated that the neighbor to the north offered to come in to testify that she would support the granting of the variance.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-60:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(2) Whether the variance is substantial. Each member of the BZBA stated that the variance is not substantial.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated false.

(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the BZBA stated false.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Each member of the BZBA stated false.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the western side yard setback from ten (10') feet to seven feet eight inches (7'8") feet, to allow for the construction of a porte cochere.

(Mr. Ashbaugh returned as Chair of the BZBA meeting at 7:15 PM.)

Discussion:

(Alison Terry and Richard Nevil were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh)

Richard Nevil, 324 East Maple Street, stated that he is representing the homeowner and he drew up the plans.

Frank OBrien-Bernini, 338 West Elm Street, stated that the view from his property will overlook the proposed addition. He indicated that the homeowner did come by and show him the plans. Ms. Hoyt asked if there is parking available along the back side of the home. Mr. Nevil stated no and the area she is referring to is a patio area. Mr. Montgomery asked if the roof top will be the same height as the back porch. Mr. Nevil stated that it would be a little higher than the back porch roof, which is a 3/12 pitch.

Mr. Gill asked if the retaining wall is being considered for the variance. Ms. Terry stated that the retaining wall does not need to be included in the setbacks because it is similar to a fence and it can be located on the property line, therefore a variance is not required. Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the back porch will stay the same. Mr. Nevil stated that they will mesh the new roof into the existing roof line and complete the skirt around the existing deck. Mr. Ashbaugh inquired if there would be any more additional pavers or cement. Mr. Nevil stated no and he indicated that they would be re-establishing the retaining wall. Mr. O’Brien-Bernini stated that he has no objection to the engineering of the proposed project and his only concern would be that his sewer goes down the center of the driveway on the Smith property. He stated that he believes their line is located where one of the proposed posts are. Mr. O’Brien-Bernini stated that he knows nothing more about the sewer line other than it has been in place since 1905 and he asked that this be noted on the applicant’s site plan. Mr. O’Brien-Bernini questioned if the line ever needs to be replaced - how does the village deal with this? Mr. Gill indicated that the proposed porte cochere may not be high enough for a backhoe to get in if work were needed to be done. Mr. O’Brien-Bernini questioned if the applicant has thought about water run-off from the new structure. He stated that there is an old stone wall there that may not be able to support more water run-off. He went on to say that he has no objection as long as an engineer can address and consider these concerns. Mr. O’Brien-Bernini stated that his main concerns are the sewer line and the integrity of the existing wall. Mr. Nevil stated that this water can be directed where they need it to go and gutters will be installed. Mr. Montgomery asked if the water would hit the retaining wall if there were no gutters. Mr. O’Brien-Bernini and Mr. Nevil agreed it most likely would. Ms. Terry suggested that the applicant choose a gutter prior to the Planning Commission meeting so this can be included in the approval. Mr. Gill asked what the Village responsibility would be regarding the placement of the sewer line. Ms. Terry stated that she will speak with Erik Holmquist in the Water Department because she was unaware until this evening that the sanitary sewer line was on the property. Ms. Terry stated that she will have to ask if the Village would want a structure built that ultimately won’t allow access. She agreed that the Village probably doesn’t have an easement in this case and she also questioned if the Village would want to move the existing line. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the property owner is responsible for the line if it were to break/leak. Mr. Nevil stated that the proposed porte cochere is ten foot high if a backhoe were to be needed. Ms. Terry stated the BZBA Board could either table this application so she can get more information or they can approve it and she will clarify all of the information before she releases the zoning permit. Mr. Montgomery questioned if this application ought to be tabled until the Village has the information from the Water Department. Ms. Hoyt stated she really does not want to see things slowed down for the applicant by making them come back again in a month. Mr. Montgomery stated that if this is approved, there are no safeguards for Mr. O’Brien-Bernini’s request. Ms. Hoyt ultimately agreed with Mr. Montgomery. Mr. Nevil asked if the Village will be able to verify the location of the sewer line. Ms. Terry stated most likely Mr. Holmquist will know and it may be shown in GIS mapping. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the BZBA is only basing their determination on the variance and not the location of the sewer line. Mr. Gill asked if Mr. O’Brien-Bernini knew the type of piping for the sewer line. Mr. O’Brien-Bernini stated he believed it is a clay pipe.

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to Table Application #09-75 to allow the Village Planner to investigate the sewer line placement underneath the proposed porte cochere. Seconded by Mr. Gill.

Mr. Nevil stated that he does not see this as a zoning issue, but the property owner will have to discuss this matter with their neighbor. Mr. Obrien-Bernini asked if the application could be approved with a condition. Ms. Terry stated yes, but in this situation it would be hard to nullify the variance if it is approved this evening. Ms. Terry indicated that she will go out to the property with the Village Manager and Sewer Department to determine what the Village has the right to do or not do in this case and who would bear the costs associated with the replacement of the line. Mr. Gill stated that the approval of the variance would be addressed by the criteria and in this case he would have to vote ‘No’ on particular criteria he typically would have a ‘Yes’ vote on. Roll Call Vote to Table Application #09-75: Gill (yes), Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (no). Motion carried 3-1. Application #09-75 is Tabled.

Finding of Fact

Application #09-60

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1159, Village Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.

Ms. Terry explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding.

She stated that the BZBA has thirty days to make a decision and any appeals are heard by Village Council. He stated that any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence.

Ms. Terry noted that Mr. Ashbaugh would not be able to vote on the application because he is an adjacent property owner and there would not be a quorum to hear the application.

Lauren Andrew Fisher, 332 East College Street, Application #09-65

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the eastern side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to four (4’) feet, to allow for the installation of an air conditioning unit.

Lauren Andrew Fisher, 332 East College Street, stated that the Planning Commission did review this application and it was approved with the condition that she receive BZBA approval and that she screen the air-conditioning unit with evergreen plant material. Mrs. Fisher indicated that they have spoken with the neighbors on the side affected by the placement of the air-conditioning unit and they had no issues. Mr. Ashbaugh asked why the unit is being placed where it is, rather than in the rear of the property. Mrs. Fisher stated that the HVAC installer felt the proposed location was the best option. She went on to explain that it would cause more difficulty to run the lines through the foundation of the home and crawl space and they are able to utilize an old window for placement of the cooling lines if installed on the side of the home. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that it doesn’t take much effort to run lines if there is access to a crawl space. Mrs. Fisher stated that if they installed the unit in the rear of the home it would also interfere with their garden. She went on to say that if the unit is on the side of the home it is hidden from neighbors and pedestrians and they felt it was just a nicer fit on the side. Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the proposed location prohibits lawnmowers or cars from getting through if need be. Mrs. Fisher stated that fortunately the neighbors have been kind enough to allow access using their driveway to get the rear of the property, if the need should arise. Mrs. Fisher stated that there is also adequate space on the other side of the home to get to the rear of the property. She also stated that there is a large lilac bush that is in the area where they would like to place the air-conditioning unit and this would also block any access to the rear of the property.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-65:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The BZBA unanimously agreed this statement is false.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed this statement is false.

(2) Whether the variance is substantial. Each member of the BZBA stated that the variance is not substantial.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed this statement is false.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The BZBA unanimously agreed this statement is true.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. TheBZBA unanimously agreed this statement is true.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed this statement is true.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The BZBA unanimously agreed this statement is true.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the BZBA agreed that this statement is true.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1159, Village Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Ashbaugh explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing; however, the meeting is open to the public and is a quasi-judicial proceeding.

He stated that the BZBA has thirty days to make a decision and any appeals are heard by Village Council. He stated that any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at the hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence.

New Business:

Richard Liebson, 134 South Mulberry Street, Application #09-43

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the northern side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to two (2’) feet to allow for the construction of a flagstone patio and pathway from the side of the home to the rear, detached garage.

Discussion:

Richard Liebson, 134 South Mulberry Street, presented his comprehensive landscape plan to the Board. He outlined how the existing landscaping on the north side of his property would be removed and replaced with the plan outlined in his packet. Mr. Liebson described how the existing landscape timbers and stones had deteriorated. This area was now a safety hazard as well as being unsightly. He explained how he would replace the existing landscape timbers with stone slabs and stone risers. The existing landscaping would be replaced with ground cover and shrubbery. He indicated that these changes would resolve any safety hazards and improve the overall appearance of his property. He requested that the Board approve his variance request for the hardscape installation.

The Board was presented with a copy of a letter from Mr. Liebson’s neighbor Dan Finkleman indicating his support for Mr. Liebson’s application.

Boardmember Hoyt indicated that she felt the request would improve the home’s curb appeal, marketability and functionality.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-43:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.

The Board unanimously indicated no.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.

The Board unanimously indicated yes.

(2) Whether the variance is substantial.

The Board unanimously stated that the variance was not substantial.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.

The Board unanimously indicated yes.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.

The Board unanimously indicated no.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.

The Board unanimously indicated yes.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.

The Board unanimously indicated yes.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.

The Board unanimously indicated yes.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.

The Board unanimously agreed that there are no additional conditions necessary.

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1159, Village Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Ashbaugh explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding.

He stated that the BZBA has thirty days to make a decision and any appeals are heard by Village Council. He stated that any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence.

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the northern and southern side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to four (4’) feet and to increase the maximum building lot coverage from 20% to 20.6%, to allow for the construction of a 22’x32’ detached garage.

Mr. Ashbaugh swore in the following individuals who wished to speak in regards to Application #09-21:Village Planner, Alison Terry, Michael Carey, Joe Hickman, and Dale McCoy.

Discussion:

Michael Carey, 332 North Granger Street, read a prepared statement pertaining to his request for a variance. Mr. Carey explained that the new garage would provide vast more utility for him and his family. He stated that on September 25, 2006 he came before a Granville board because he was considering purchasing the property at 332 North Granger and he did this on the advice of his real estate agent. Mr. Carey stated that the conclusion was it would be a reasonable request to build a garage and the board suggested having another work session before proceeding. Mr. Carey stated that he has taken a look around the Village to see other garages to gather a richer set of ideas. Mr. Carey stated that at the advice of Ms. Terry, she said that first he needed the appropriate variances. He stated that he has submitted two building location proposals and the first is to build at the current location and the other is a head in configuration. Mr. Carey stated that he understands that the board must choose one or the other. Mr. Carey stated that originally he believed Option ‘A’ was the only option, but now he sees Option ‘B’ as being a viable option as well. Mr. Carey stated that he has been advised that he should consider building massing in his plans and he believes Option ‘B’ is more massing friendly. Mr. Montgomery clarified that Option ‘1’ or Option ‘A’ is where the existing garage sits and Option ‘2’ or Option ‘B’ goes straight back. Ms Terry stated yes. Ms. Hoyt asked if Option ‘B’ is used - would the existing garage still be removed. Mr. Carey stated yes. Ms. Hoyt asked if Option ‘B’ would require the removal of a tree in the back yard. Mr. Carey stated yes, depending on how far to the west he builds. Ms. Hoyt asked what type of tree that is. Mr. Carey stated he believed it is a Spruce. Mr. Smith asked if a concrete slab for Option ‘A’would be removed. Mr. Carey stated yes and with the removal of all concrete in either option the area would be returned to green space. Mr. Smith stated that the lawn space would increase. Mr. Carey agreed that the lot coverage – green space – would be increased with these proposals. Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the footprint on the house is different than what is in the submitted material. Mr. Carey stated that he wasn’t sure how to measure the footprint but the measurements on the official deed are quite accurate. Ms. Terry clarified that 1575 feet includes the back porch (due to the structure having a roof over it). Ms. Hoyt clarified that the existing garage does not conform to current zoning requirements. Ms. Terry stated that if you remove more than 60% of the structure it loses its non-conformity status.

Joe Hickman, 326 North Granger Street, stated that he is speaking on behalf of his wife and himself. He stated that he has no problem with Option ‘A’ and they really don’t have a problem with the lot coverage increasing from 20% to 20.6%. Mr. Hickman stated that what they would want to make sure of is that it is not a two story building and only a story and a half. He stated that they would like to maintain privacy as well as building massing and he would ask that these specific concerns be passed on to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hickman stated that he does not believe that other two story garages have been approved for this area in the past. He stated that across the street from his home a story and a half garage was approved. Mr. Hickman stated that they would appreciate no windows facing his property due to privacy. He stated that the location of Option ‘A’ appears to be fine, and Option ‘B’ mostly affects his neighbors the McCoy’s. Mr. Hickman questioned if the garage space could be turned into a mother-in-law suite or apartment. Ms. Terry stated that this is not a permitted use in this district. Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the garage gets larger would it bother Mr. Hickman or if the garage is deeper would it bother him. Mr. Ashbaugh stated if the garage were to disappear with the use of Option ‘B’ – suddenly Mr. Hickman could see everything in his neighbors yard. Mr. Hickman stated that he strongly prefers Option ‘A’ because the layout would remain pretty much as is.

Dale McCoy, 338 North Granger Street, stated that he just had a new garage installed a couple of years ago. The concern he has regarding Option ‘A’ or Option ‘B’ is that it is not a two story building and this is the only privacy he has. Mr. McCoy stated that he has no problem with either location as long as it is not a two story building. He stated that the only thing he would be concerned about regarding the two options is that if it is built closer to his side it would be 3 ½ feet (3 ½’) from his property line and he would want to have enough space to maintain his fence. Mr. McCoy stated that he also wanted a two story garage too and was flat out told it wasn’t possible.

Mr. Montgomery asked Mr. Hickman if Option ‘A’ causes him any concerns when maintaining his fence. Mr. Hickman stated no. Mr. Smith questioned if a variance can be granted with conditions. Ms. Terry stated yes that the BZBA can attach additional provisions of approval. Mr. Montgomery questioned if the Planning Commission would be the board addressing the neighbor’s concerns regarding windows. Ms. Terry stated that this can be handled by the Planning Commission or the BZBA can also incorporate this as a condition if they so choose. Mr. Mccoy asked if the second floor would be used for something other than storage and he stated that he too would have concerns with any windows facing his property. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that this should be turned over to the Planning Commission and he questioned if they can overrule any conditions set by the Planning Commission. Ms. Terry stated that they cannot overrule any conditions and she stated that the Planning Commission works within the confines of the variance granted by the BZBA. Mr. Carey stated that it seems as though massing is an over riding issue and the most important thing for the BZBA is to choose the plan that is the most massing friendly. He stated that this could be an issue for the next phase with the Planning Commission. Mr. Hickman stated that he strongly supports Option ‘A’ and he didn’t know until today that the applicant was considering a story and a half structure. He stated that the two story garage was the only massing issue. Mr. Smith stated that he is more comfortable with Option ‘A’ and he would have concerns over taking out a large tree in Option ‘B’ because he likes to keep them when they can. Mr. Smith stated that given the lack of a strong preference by the applicant, he favors Option ‘A.’ Ms. Hoyt and Mr. Montgomery agreed.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-21 for Option ‘A’:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. Ms. Hoyt and Mr. Smith stated true. Mr. Montgomery stated that the current structure is within current zoning restrictions.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Ms. Smith stated that there can be beneficial use of the property without the variance. Ms. Hoyt agreed. Mr. Montgomery stated true.

(2) Whether the variance is substantial. Mr. Montgomery stated that the variance is not substantial with conditions - true. Ms. Hoyt agreed true. Mr. Smith stated that the variance is substantial when viewed against the code, but not when you compare it against other properties in the same zoning area - false. Mr. Ashbaugh agreed with Mr. Smith - false.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated false.

(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the BZBA stated false.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. Each member of the BZBA stated true.The applicant, Mr. Carey, stated that he was not aware of the building lot coverage of 20%. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the BZBA read this as though the applicant was aware that there was particular zoning set for this property and not necessarily particular criteria.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Each member of the BZBA stated no.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated yes.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA stated true.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the BZBA stated true.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Mr. Smith stated that he is inclined to believe that conditions are not necessary. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the BZBA should not start imposing conditions and the Planning Commission should do this. Mr. Ashbaugh agreed that the BZBA would prefer it to not be a two story structure. Mr. Montgomery stated that this would be substantial if it were allowed to be more than a one and a half story variance and he wouldn’t vote for it unless there is a condition. Ms. Hoyt agreed with Mr. Montgomery.

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to approve Application #09-21 – Option ‘A’ with the condition that the applicant limit the height of the building to one and a half stories and that no windows be permitted above the first story on the southern side of the structure. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Montgomery (yes), Hoyt (yes), Smith (no), Ashbaugh (yes). Motion carried 3-1. Application #09-21 is approved with the above stated conditions.

(Mr. Smith commented that he voted “No” due to the condition with the window restriction.)

The request is for approval of a conditional use to allow for an addition to the Chiller Plant.

Mr. Ashbaugh swore in the following individuals who wished to speak in regards to Application #09-24:Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Art Chonko.

Discussion:

Art Chonko, Denison University, 1205 North Pearl Street, stated that this structure is used to house the equipment needed to provide air-conditioning for Denison University.

Ms. Terry stated that because this is an accessory building, it requires approval for a conditional use. Mr. Chonko stated that the building is located on the side of the hill and is relatively unseen. He stated that Gwynyth Charma-Huff was notified regarding the exterior modifications because she is a contiguous property owner. He went on to say that she attended the Planning Commission meeting to ask if there would be additional noise pollution and he stated that this would not be an issue. Mr. Montgomery also questioned the level of noise pollution. Ms. Hoyt stated that the building sits low with buffers all around. Mr. Chonko added that there will be less noise than what is currently there. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that this is a pretty straight forward application and it matches the building that is already there and it cannot be seen anywhere off campus. Mr. Montgomery asked if there are any emissions. Mr. Chonko stated that you will see steam off of a cooling tower from water vapor.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-24:

a) The proposed use is a conditional use within the zoning district and the applicable development standards of this Zoning Ordinance are met. The BZBA unanimously agreed yes.

b) The proposed use is in accordance with appropriate plans for the area and is compatible with the existing land use. The BZBA unanimously agreed yes.

c) The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as street, utilities, schools and refuse disposal. The BZBA unanimously agreed true it will.

d) The proposed use will not be detrimental or disturbing to existing neighboring uses, and will not entail a use, structure or condition of operation that constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons or property. The BZBA unanimously agreed true.

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby gives approval for Application #09-21/Option ‘A’ with the condition that the building shall be limited to one and a half stories and no windows be permitted above the first story on the southern side of the structure.

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1145, Conditional Uses and Chapter 1169, Institutional District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Ashbaugh explained the proceedings of the board and that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet that the meeting is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding.

He stated that the BZBA has thirty days to make a decision and any appeals are heard by Village Council. He stated that any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence.

New Business:

Walter and Judy Gloshinski, 428 East College Street, Application #09-11

The request is for approval of a variance to reduce the western side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to nine and a half (9 ½’) feet and to reduce the rear yard setback from forty (40’) feet to thirty-six (36’) feet, to accommodate the installation of a generator.

Discussion:

Walter and Judy Gloshinski, 428 East College Street, were sworn in by Mr. Ashbaugh.

Walter Gloshinski stated that their home does not have a wood stove or any other means of heat if inclement weather were to cut off electricity and therefore, he would like to have a hard-wired generator installed. Judy Gloshinski stated that the generator is powered by natural gas and is supposed to be silent. Mr. Gill questioned if the generator comes on automatically. Mrs. Gloshinski stated that the generator does have a weekly recycle lasting 8 to 10 minutes. Mr. Gill suggested that it may be beneficial to have the recycle period begin at 12:15 on Wednesday’s when the tornado sirens go off and this could reduce the total noise pollution. Mrs. Gloshinki agreed that this was a good idea. Mr. Gloshinski stated that they did a price comparison between installing a generator and installing a fireplace and the generator was the most economically feasible option. Mr. Gill asked if the applicant has spoken to the adjacent property owners. Mr. Gloshinski indicated that they have spoken with the neighbors and they had no problem with the generator. Ms. Hoyt asked if there was any response from public notice letters. Ms. Terry stated no. Mr. Ashbaugh questioned if the home is located at the corner of Sunrise Street and College Street. Mrs. Gloshinski clarified that the generator would only be visible from College Street. Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the applicant has considered shielding the unit with shrubbery. Ms. Terry stated that the applicant will also go through the Planning Commission for approval of the generator and they will address screening of the unit. Mr. Montgomery asked if the unit would be positioned so that the wide end would parallel to the house. Mr. Gill and Mr. Ashbaugh clarified which unit the applicant is submitting for approval.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-11:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. Ms. Hoyt stated no, because the lot is typical in size and it is not “special” in relation to the surrounding lots. Mr. Smith, Mr. Montgomery, and Mr. Gill stated false.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Mr. Smith agreed that the granting of the variance will be a benefit to the property owner. Ms. Hoyt, Mr. Montgomery, and Mr. Gill stated that the property will still yield a reasonable return.

(2) Whether the variance is substantial. Each member of the BZBA stated that the variance is not substantial.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated no.

(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the BZBA stated no.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The applicant, Mr. Gloshinski, stated that they were not aware that the generator would require a variance. Mr. Montgomery stated that there is no restriction on generators, it is considered a restriction for this application due to the setback requirements. Mr. Smith stated he would assign this criteria to have no weight in this case because he does not know the answer. Mr. Gill, Ms. Hoyt and Mr. Montgomery stated no.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Each member of the BZBA stated no.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated yes.

Based upon its review of the factors herein, Section B, the BZBA finds that the strict interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty for the owner of the property.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA stated yes.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the BZBA stated yes.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.